Set Our Children Free

In September 2008, the UK government finally removed its immigration opt-out to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and committed to introducing a duty on the UK Border Agency equivalent to section 11 of the Children Act 2004, which requires it to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.

Yet the government continue to imprison children for weeks on end, and at one detention centre (Yarl's Wood) over 40% of children detained are eventually released without being deported. In fact, on 27 December 2008, 40 children were in detention – 20 of them had been in detention for over two weeks despite 'implementing' the Convention in full.

At the weekend, the Welsh Refugee Council hit the headlines highlighting just this point, criticising the government's treatment of the children of asylum seekers in detention as 'abusive' and 'dehumanising' and claiming it continues to be in breach of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Mike Lewis, the chief executive of the WRC, was quoted as saying, "We're not talking about 15 year olds. We're talking about three and four year olds, babies even. We've got stories of children who haven't been fed all day in this process. They then go into these places [detention centres] where they could be there for months while their claims are sorted out. I don't think you could make it any more dehumanising really".

According to Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID), in a "Briefing Paper on Children and Immigration Detention" (Feb '09), every year around 2,000 children (the UK government refuses to release the exact numbers) are detained for the purposes of 'immigration control', under exactly the same conditions as adults. The government justifies their detention by arguing that they would abscond if released or that their removal from the country is imminent.

Yet "there is no evidence that families are systematically at risk of absconding if they are not detained. The education and health needs of children, friendship ties and the desire to be granted status in the UK all work against families ‘disappearing’."

The BID report goes on to list a number 'Key concerns about the detention of children':

• The impact of detention on a child’s physical and mental health
• Safeguards to keep children from harm in detention are not meaningful
• Decisions to detain are not subject to automatic judicial oversight
• Detention is not used as a last resort or for the shortest possible time
• The detention of children is not properly monitored.

As a sop to these concerns, shared by amongst others the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, the Children’s Commissioner for England, the UK Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons and the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights, and in an attempt to postpone the inevitable, the government has been piloting so-called 'alternatives to detention for families' in Ashford, Kent (which ended in summer 2008) and Glasgow (to start spring 2009).

Already there are a number of reports about the adverse effects of this scheme on those families that were involved in the first pilot. As BID conclude in their report, "until these commitments lead the government to accept that the detention of children in itself is incompatible with the promotion of their welfare, we believe that the continued detention of children in the UK is contrary to these obligations."